Z/EQ-i & Stress – JUN 05
© 2005 Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D.
2
Stress, according to Hans Selye (1978), one of the foremost authorities on stress, is
the body’s non-specific reaction to anydemand made upon it.
That is, the body produces predictable physiological and behavioral responses when any exogenous orendogenous stimulus acts on it. For example, stressful situations such as winning a million dollars, getting a divorce or apromotion produce the same core physiological symptoms. Using Selye’s definition of stress would result in many leadershipsituations having a high probability of being categorized as stressful, even for senior executives.Based on a review of the stress and EI literature, it is reasonable to expect that some or all EI scales should show a response tostress. For example, a characteristic behavioral response to stress is withdrawal from social interaction. Thus, one would expectto see a decrease in Interpersonal Relationship scores when a leader is experiencing high levels of stress. Other examples mayinclude lower scores on Self-Regard, Happiness and Optimism.Slaski and Cartwright (2002) found a significant relationship between EI as measured by the EQ-i, subjective stress andperformance such that managers who scored higher on the EQ-i reported less subjective stress and demonstrated bettermanagement performance. They also suggest that EI might play an important role in mitigating the impact of stress. Thus, theypropose that EI training might be a means of reducing stress.An exercise developed by Schutz (1984) to demonstrate the impact of high and low self-esteem on individual performanceconsists of having two groups of three people each perform a work task in front of the class. The only difference in thedirections between the two groups was that members of one group were told to think of a time they had very low self-esteem just prior to entering the classroom to receive their task. The second group was told to think of a time when they had very highself-esteem. The difference in task performance between the two groups was dramatic with the high self-esteem groupsignificantly outperforming the low self-esteem group in both quality of task performance and attitude. The power of thought-induced attitude change caused by a one-sentence direction given 60 seconds prior to receiving task instructions was dramatic.Along this same line, the mindset of an individual completing a self-report has been shown to influence how he/she responds toa questionnaire. The
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
®
(MBTI
®
)
Manual
(McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998) suggests that“reported” Type might be influenced by external factors:
Some people have trouble finding the right mind-set for answering the MBTI. The setting in which theyanswer the questions may influence them to report their “work self,” “school self,” “ideal self,” or someother self that is specific to external demands
(p. 108).Thompson and Walsh (2000) had respondents complete the MBTI instrument twice. The instrument was completed once withdirections designed to create a “job” mindset (actually completed while at work). The instrument was completed a second time,on a different day, at home, with instructions designed to create a “home” mindset. The sequence of administrations wasrandomized within the group. The findings revealed a significant main effect for mindset. Even though the MBTI instrumentappears to be relatively robust with high test-retest reliability (
r
=.92; McCaulley, et al., 1998), the individual’s mindset has asignificant influence on the outcome of the self-report. Furthermore, the mindset was created with a simple set of instructions.Ware, Rytting and Jenkins (1994) found that when respondents were instructed to place themselves into a “stressed” mind-setand complete the MBTI instrument, their scores moved from their validated type preferences toward I, S, and T. The Ware, etal., findings suggest that self-report instruments can be easily influenced by instruction-induced “stressed” mindsets.In a similar study, Thompson (2001) found that when people were asked to complete FIRO
®
Element B
™
(a self-reportinstrument) with instructions designed to create “normal” and “stressed” mindsets, the two sets of scores were significantlydifferent. The “stressed” mindset scores, although significantly lower in the aggregated data, were not always lower at theindividual level. Some individuals did not change in the predicted direction. As a group, they showed a significant drop indesire for social interaction (to include others or be included) and desire to be open (share their own personal feelings or haveothers share their personal feelings with them). It could be inferred from the Element B changes and the MBTI changesdescribed above that EI might change during stressful situations.The EQ-i, a self-report instrument that purports to measure EI, reports a Stress Tolerance subscale test-retest reliabilitycoefficient dropping from 0.79 at one month to 0.55 at four months (Bar-On, 2002). There is speculation around why thissubscale is so low after only one month (0.79) and, particularly, why it drops to the very low 0.55 three months later. Of thefifteen subscales, Stress Tolerance appears to be the least reliable and stable. This lack of stability suggests that StressTolerance is susceptible to variations in the environment and/or mindset of the respondent.The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of mindset on EI as reported by the BarOn EQ-i instrument. The studiescited above provide support for the ability to create a “stressed” mindset through instructions. There is also reason to expectthat at least some of the subscales will be influenced by the mindset of the respondent resulting in lowered subscale scores. If this hypothesis is true, it may have many implications, one of which is an explanation for why some high EI leaders derail.
Leave a Comment